Denial of evolution

[Ophiolite]

Simply simply share that a human being evolves from a single celled critter that combined with another .

No. This is not the correct usage in biology of the word evolve. A human being develops as an individual.

and the whole record of evolution can be observed watching a fetus develop (even see the tail).

No. The old 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' mantra of Haeckel was discarded almost a century ago.

Main problem is and there is really only one pure issue;

from your narrow point of view.

i.e.... if the math was correct, then the kids would be learning evolution without even using the word. (The word was not even in the book Origin of Species)

from your narrow point of view.

so the only way for evolution to be understood correctly is when the minds of the sciences get off their butts and define the association of lipids and especially the bilayer correctly.

from your narrow point of view.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Believe me I understand how you feel FR but you must realize that the answer, if you really wish to get through to theist, is not by generalizing them, berating, arrogance and strong arm.

I'm not trying to get through to them. I'm trying to get rid of them. The Moderators of this website are volunteers, as is true of most such sites. We don't have the bandwidth to handle the kind of trolling that an army of religionists can dump on us.

This is the society of science that needs a personality overhaul. People need to see that what you're offering isn't a punch in a gut but reason and light, and knowledge with out judgement.

Religionists don't play by those rules. Punch in the gut? They've destroyed three entire civilizations. Reason? The basis of their philosophy is unreasoned faith. Light? The millennium when they achieved their pinnacle of glory is called the Dark Ages. Knowledge? They believe in "revealed truth." Judgment? They have a fictional creature dwelling in a supernatural universe who takes care of that for them.

 

[albertchong1999]

evolution?

Admin Note: Merged on 03 December 2008

Do u ever thinking how the life on earth exist? do u think it is so coincident it happened from big bang theory or volcanic activity found on earth?asteriod strike and lighting caused life to exist? the accidental combination of all element together to form DNA and human? millions lifes on earth born from single cell molecule?

the life on earth is too complicated to happen in chances. even nowadays scientist can't even create a single cell molecule given all the element and resource. Even single cell molecule has a very complicated function itself,needless to say other higher primates.. human anatomy has millions of individual function. there is no coincident. there is no evidence found that non-life can transform into life matter. there is somebody out there building us.

 

[leopold]

evolution is a fact, deal with it.

 

[Harro]

There was no big bang, the universe has always existed. The universe is the creator. Time is change, rate of change is relative, everything in the universe is finite but the universe is eternal. Evolution is how everything comes into being.
Black holes are the limit of a crunch, the vaccum at ~2.7 Kelin is the limit of the void.
Supernatural God/s are a virus of the mind. Mythology such as the bibble/Koran where made by men for control and power. Energy can't be created nor destroyed, only changing form.

Abiogenisis
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

 

[spidergoat]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88371

What's going on, Albert? Repeating yourself?

 

[Enmos]

There was no big bang, the universe has always existed. The universe is the creator. Time is change, rate of change is relative, everything in the universe is finite but the universe is eternal. Evolution is how everything comes into being.
Black holes are the limit of a crunch, the vaccum at ~2.7 Kelin is the limit of the void.
Supernatural God/s are a virus of the mind. Mythology such as the bibble/Koran where made by men for control and power. Energy can't be created nor destroyed, only changing form.

Abiogenisis
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

I don't think the big bang and the universe having always existed have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[spidergoat]

Do u ever thinking how the life on earth exist? do u think it is so coincident it happened from big bang theory or volcanic activity found on earth?asteriod strike and lighting caused life to exist? the accidental combination of all element together to form DNA and human? millions lifes on earth born from single cell molecule?

the life on earth is too complicated to happen in chances. even nowadays scientist can't even create a single cell molecule given all the element and resource. Even single cell molecule has a very complicated function itself,needless to say other higher primates.. human anatomy has millions of individual function. there is no coincident. there is no evidence found that non-life can transform into life matter. there is somebody out there building us.

The first life didn't have DNA. The cell and DNA evolved from simpler forms. Human anatomy has vestigal parts. Parts that have no use, but are held over from previous functions. Some babies are born with functional tails. Now please stop spamming this forum and get yourself an education.

 

[DeepThought]

millions lifes on earth born from single cell molecule

Single celled molecules are a faith of living minds - just like the stars in the sky. Many of the ones you can see, however, are already dead. The stars do not bury their own.

In time we will be dead too.

 

[Xelios]

Creation explains nothing, it simply claims that nothing needs explaining.

 

[Ophiolite]

the life on earth is too complicated to happen in chances.

IT does not happen by chance, but by the expression of the basic laws of the universe acting within the constraints of the fundamental constants.

 

[OilIsMastery]

evolution is a fact

Not according to plate tectonics.

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

 

[leopold]

Not according to plate tectonics.

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

i couldn't understand why everyone here was calling for you to be banned.
now i know why.

 

[OilIsMastery]

i couldn't understand why everyone here was calling for you to be banned.
now i know why.

Because I use observation, logic, reason, and scientific references as opposed to unsupported fundamentalist religious assertions.

 

[leopold]

what "logic" tells you evolution is false?

 

[OilIsMastery]

what "logic" tells you evolution is false?

What "logic" tells you poorly dispersing immobile taxa and terrestrial vertebrates can teleport across oceans?

 

[leopold]

what does this have to do with evolution?
i again ask "what logic tells you evolution is false"?

 

[OilIsMastery]

what does this have to do with evolution?
i again ask "what logic tells you evolution is false"?

Plate tectonics "logic" requires that evolution be abandoned.

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

 

[leopold]

evolution is a fact, period. there is no way around it.
to say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[OilIsMastery]

evolution is a fact, period. there is no way around it.
to say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

I agree that plate tectonics is intellectually dishonest. There is no possible way Abrotonella, Chilean flat oysters, tuatara, and marsupials can teleport across oceans other than magic and miracles.